Pages

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

A free society and the laws that bind it

As we've been raised and educated about the American "justice" system it is the only form of "justice" we've come to know. So it becomes increasingly difficult to imagine a world that could live without something that's been indoctrinated in our minds for more than 200 years. There exists though two justifications for the removal of the State and the so called justice system we have that live intrinsically in the State. The first is a moral justification, which is the strongest of the two, which notes that the State uses the monopoly of force and violence to implement such laws that individuals have no choice but to follow. I believe in a voluntary society where one can live without the use of force when such laws may be in place that still violate natural rights and are therefor not natural laws, I will get into natural laws in a little. The second justification is an economic one which goes hand and hand with the moral justification. I would argue, although not in this post, that all goods can be better served to consumers in a completely free market at a lower price and higher quality than government could ever imagine to accomplish with the use of compulsion and coercion. These justifications lay the foundations for a society that would be free from the State and flourish while individuals are safe from tyranny. Before I get into how private law can work we must first realize that just because there are current laws that forbid stealing, murder, etc it doesn't mean that without these laws people will en mass go on a spree of stealing and murdering. I know I would do no such things and I'm pretty sure you would do no such things. But I am a practical man and realize that there are bad people in this world that will do bad things but no amount of government can stop these people. In a free society where property rights exist as noted in my Property post there would exist a market for private law that could protect property which includes land and of course your body. At first it seems strange to expect to live in a world with no police, but of course even today where we have police they can only do so much and most of the time it is of course after the fact. In a free society there would exist a market for protection services to be had. These would be voluntary services that consumers would pay for and the protection services would be held accountable to these very consumers. Competition between protection firms would create firms that would produce great quality protection at a low cost. The wealthiest would pay higher costs to have higher quality services akin to bodyguards. Those that are not as wealthy could pool money together to pay to protect the community. There would also exist an incentive for certain firms to produce protection at very low costs that the poor could afford. This is how all goods exist in the somewhat free market that we have today and protective services are goods as well. Now to address the ideas of private law and how they would exist to protect individuals in a free market is one in the same as protective services. Arbitration exists outside of courts to settle disputes today so as to avoid going through the long process of public court. The idea is already set in place as people voluntarily choose to settle disputes with arbiters that both sides agree to go to and accept their decisions. This is an easy solution that exists where there are disputes that both parties would like to solve. The harder problem lies in the fact that sometimes people won't want to settle disputes with you and will avoid arbitration. The instances something like this might come to be is perhaps in the crimes of theft and murder and such. If for example someone steals your tv and for whichever reason you know who it is (you caught him leaving your house or caught it on video) and you would like to retrieve your property you might choose to confront him peacefully to get it back. He of course would say that he did not steal the tv and that he got it in some honest way. As the peaceful person you are, even though you could morally walk in and take it with force, you decide to settle the dispute in a civil matter. Your next course of action would be to see if this person would like to settle the dispute with an arbiter. He of course would claim he stole no property and has no reason to settle a dispute. Your next course of action would be to offer this man a choice of arbiters that you would agree to go to, let's say 10 different arbiters, and he could choose whichever he wanted to go to. You would also say that if he didn't choose one you would choose one to go to where he didn't have to represent himself but it would be in his best interest to do so. Once again he would refuse to go and you would seek an arbiter that has proven to give just decisions. This arbiter, seeing that you had proof that your tv was stolen by this man, would rule in your favor and would seek to get your tv back with a private service. This is how certain disputes could be solved in a voluntary society free of the State. The best arbiters would be chosen by consumers who would be able to choose the arbiters that best fit their ideas. Just like most of the laws we have that protect property are based on natural rights arose natural rights would MOST LIKLEY arise in a free market since most people would believe in such things as pointed out by St. Thomas Aquinas here http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/natlaw.html